This article was originally published in Danish on April 6, 2020.
It is, of course, a sound principle that a people should rally behind their leaders in times of crisis. When the survival of the nation is at stake, petty disagreements must naturally take a back seat. But what if this whole crisis mood is the result of the complete incompetence—or hidden agenda—of those very same leaders?
In short, I feel strongly nauseous when otherwise sensible people break out in praise of Mette Frederiksen’s “historic speeches” and statesmanship. The decisions of our beloved leader are, as she herself says, “political.” They are certainly not evidence-based, just like her climate nonsense. Mette Frederiksen, who, despite a master’s degree like most of her colleagues, has no real education, does not govern on the basis of knowledge and objectivity, but solely on the basis of her female and somewhat vague “feelings.” Let’s pick out a few examples from the truly historic nonsense she has spouted in response to the mild criticism some health economists have levelled at her course.
“Human lives cannot be measured in dollars during the coronavirus crisis,” says the prime minister. Otherwise, they can, because, as previously emphasized on this blog, it happens every single day in the healthcare system. But it is also exclusively people who are dying not from, but with, coronavirus that she is concerned with in this context. At present, 11,000 operations and examinations have had to be postponed in the country’s hospitals. Specialists complain that, due to the lack of protective equipment, they are unable to carry out a large number of examinations that could be a matter of life or death. People have generally been scared off from going to the doctor even with serious symptoms because they do not want to burden the system. The question is whether the system can be burdened at all, given that departments not involved in coronavirus care have been largely shut down for the sake of emergency preparedness. People who die from coronavirus are apparently worth more to Mette Frederiksen than all other sick people. In her view, this is ethically correct. In my view, this kind of ethics is highly unethical.
“We are a society based on community, solidarity, and trust. That is also my starting point when I am asked, ‘Can we see the math?’. Some people ask us that. We save so many lives, it costs so much—is it worth the money, they ask… Yet my answer is that the calculation some people are asking for is far too simplistic. The situation we are in is far more complicated than putting a price on a single human life. The strategy we are following is, of course, also a political choice. I stand by that,” said the dear leader at a press conference, according to Kristeligt Dagblad. Community, solidarity, and trust may have once existed when we were a homogeneous society with a common set of values. That was a long time ago.
It is very likely that the math is too complicated for little Mette—no one is obligated beyond their abilities—but it is actually very simple. On the one hand, there is the shutdown of the Danish economy. The consequences of this are currently completely unpredictable. It could very well end up setting us back many years economically. To my knowledge, no attempt has been made to calculate this. When you consider how, in all other contexts, endless calculations are made before any action is taken, this is quite remarkable in itself. Normally, you need to have the financial leeway and coverage for all expenses, and these expenses do not only affect the private capitalism so despised by Mette, i.e. business owners and pensioners, whose pensions often depend on securities prices. It also affects the tax revenues of society in the coming years – and also society’s expenses for, for example, unemployment benefits, social assistance, etc. This part is, of course, a little complicated because it is unpredictable, but that is not what Mette is talking about. She has not thought about that at all. She is talking about the relationship between ethics and economics. This can, of course, be a legitimate discussion. Should this patient receive this expensive medicine, or should he not? When this question is asked, the answer is usually given in advance: He won’t get it. There is no balance between the expense and the health benefits. But apparently, that’s not how it works when a terminally ill person gets COVID-19. Then that person moves up to a higher value class.
But it is actually much worse than that. Because Mette Frederiksen is not really saving anyone. As TV doctor Peter Quortrup Geisling says: “Many more Danes must be infected!” Only in this way can we achieve herd immunity as long as there is no vaccine, and we will not get one until this epidemic is over. So what they are aiming for is simply to spread the cases over a longer period of time so as not to overload the hospitals. But there were no signs that the hospitals would face such overload. In any case, it would have been far cheaper for the economy to set up emergency hospitals (e.g., in small disused hospitals) and possibly purchase more ventilators. And then, of course, the particularly vulnerable groups should be protected in any case, for example through quarantine. This would be a reasonable and inexpensive measure that everyone would understand. If enough healthy people become infected, the vulnerable groups will also be protected to a large extent by herd immunity.
But Mette Frederiksen keeps talking about saving lives. It sounds better, of course, but in reality she is just killing more people, namely those who are not receiving treatment or are not being tested in time. As Professor Jakob Kjellberg from the National Center for Welfare Research1 says: “It’s not the money itself, it’s what we’re taking from others.” This may sound incomprehensible to Mette Frederiksen and all the other members of the once-esteemed body, whose most distinguished qualification today is that they have never had a real job, but money does not grow on trees. It can only be used once, and Mette has now spent the funds for healthcare and all other welfare services a couple of decades into the future. The epidemic would have been hard on the business community in itself, but it would have recovered relatively quickly if the government had not strangled it. Various bureaucratic support packages do very little to change that. Small businesses cannot afford to be closed for weeks on end. We risk waking up to ghost towns – without shops, cafes, restaurants, etc. And we will all have less money to spend. This will also affect both business and government revenues. My income has been seriously reduced, so I have to seriously reduce my expenses. This is, of course, unknown to Mette Frederiksen. In the midst of the serious crisis she has inflicted on society, she has just received a pay rise equivalent to what Arne has to live on for six months!
It is typical that all those who have never tried to earn their money through hard work – including a bunch of red priests – call this discussion unethical, but “health economic prioritization is not unethical,” says Lars Holger Ehlers, professor of health economics at Aalborg University, in Kristeligt Dagblad. “It’s about more than human lives.” The professor is very blunt in his statement. Health economics is not about putting a price on human lives, but about putting a price on the value of efforts to combat disease. “The starting point for health economic calculations is that resources are scarce. The healthcare system could save more lives than it does today if more money were allocated. Many of the 40,000-50,000 people who die each year in Denmark could thus be saved if funding were increased.” He points out that approximately 3,000 people die each year from “unintended incidents,” which roughly translates to errors and negligence in our hospitals. Even I am shocked by that number! With more staff and thus less stress, this number could be significantly reduced, according to the professor, but as we know, every year there are deep cuts in the budget proposals. “The medical literature testifies to many types of relevant health interventions that could demonstrably save the lives of more Danes, but which we have refused to implement for financial reasons.“ The professor concludes: ”Society could probably have saved more lives for the same amount of money that the coronavirus response has cost Danish society so far, if politicians had prioritized differently. Many of the 40,000-50,000 Danes who will die this year from all kinds of diseases other than coronavirus could have been saved for the same amount of money – and probably in greater numbers than the number of coronavirus-related deaths that have been avoided.”
The professor concludes by mentioning that there are, of course, other factors to consider, such as social cohesion and public safety. But honestly: Does it make us feel safer and increase social cohesion to see the country’s economy ruined for no good reason and society’s scarce resources wasted on an effort that has at best a marginal effect and probably none at all? The 40,000-50,000 people who normally die each year die in silence and do not make the front pages of the newspapers. There are few voices calling for their rescue. However, thanks to the fawning red gutter press, the “corona effort” has been converted into praise from a population that is still unaware of the bill it will have to pay – praise that must make even Kim Jong-un jealous. This is the crucial difference between the two groups: the many who are actually dying, and those who, as a result of the shutdown of society, may not get Corona this time around, but only in the fall, and most of whom will survive if they do not suffer from another disease that will kill them. Politicians do not own ethics. For them, it’s all about staying in power!
This boundless panic is nothing but spin. We are part of nature. So are diseases. Every day, around 150 people die from all kinds of causes. When we are exposed to epidemics, it is natural to take certain precautions, but we also need to be able to carry on living once the epidemic is over! Mette Frederiksen seems to have forgotten this. Like all other politicians, she is only thinking about the next election – and when you read the opinion polls, it could be here before we know it, so she can score points with the press before the bill comes due. A statesman thinks longer term; he thinks about the next generation.
As we have said before, the most frightening thing about the whole situation is the ease with which these measures have been implemented – supported by all parties in the Folketing, unfortunately including the New Right, which has thus failed its preliminary test. That’s a fail, Pernille! We are dealing with a government and some parties that have failed the Danish people on every count and led us to the brink of disaster. How can anyone suddenly believe that these same people are doing the right thing in this situation and serving the best interests of the nation? We are dealing with a system that wants our downfall – parties whose goal is to destroy this nation. And economic ruin is a very effective way to destroy a country. No significant initiative originating from this circle should be promoted. If you support this system, you are complicit!
The celebration of Mette Frederiksen is absurd. They go so far as to instruct children to thank her on camera. This really has North Korean overtones. We can expect to see giant posters of her on lampposts soon, surrounded by grateful subjects dressed in the rags they can afford – when in reality it is her skeleton that should be hanging there! But then again, North Korea is where red journalists find their greatest role models. However, there is nothing to be said for the press currently kissing the backsides of politicians, as they have just been handed a blank check for an extra three-digit million amount in coronavirus aid. This stands in stark contrast to the bureaucracy that small business owners face if they want to get a share of the support packages. The press may have lost some advertising revenue, but everyone is losing something in this situation. On the other hand, people have more time to read the newspaper! But let’s be honest: the press prides itself on being independent. If you are independent, you cannot receive any form of public support. The press claims that its job is to keep politicians in check and ask them critical questions. There has not been much of that lately! You don’t bite the hand that feeds you! Furthermore, the entire media support system is designed in such a way that only the mainstream press benefits from it. Anyone else who tries to get a share of the constant handouts is met with rules devised and administered by the mainstream press. The death of the system press can only be welcomed! It is as independent and irrelevant as the People’s Daily in Beijing!
The press could appropriately ask politicians how these measures are compatible with the Constitution. They are incompatible with it. Whether they are sensible or not is irrelevant. The Constitution is the guiding principle for all legislation. If you can break it once, you can always break it! It is being completely ignored. The politicians’ wish list is long: bans on assembly, compulsory vaccination, access to people’s homes, surveillance of mobile phones and payment cards, closure of media critical of government policy … That’s not everything they’ve been able to get through, but as the Germans say: “You can sense the intention, and it makes you feel uneasy!” This legislation sets a precedent, and it is easy to get the feeling that we are dealing with a dress rehearsal. When the people begin to rebel against the great replacement, we will see what can really be achieved with special legislation when the Constitution apparently no longer applies.
Unfortunately, the tendency to support the incumbent governments seems to be universal at the moment, even though these governments are made up of traitors to their country. Thus, support for Alternative für Deutschland and the Sweden Democrats, for example, appears to be declining. Dear friends: Immigration is a greater danger than Corona – a far, far greater danger. If you cannot see that, you should demand your school fees back!
Let us conclude with some interesting figures from England:
As Dr. John Lee argues at Coffee House, perspective is everything. There were 138,913 deaths recorded in England and Wales from January 1 to March 20, of which 210 are listed as being infected with Covid-19. A total of 4,900 fewer people died than normally die within this time frame. If we look at deaths where ‘influenza and pneumonia’ are listed as the cause of death, there were 1,841 deaths in week 12 – compared to an average of 2,120 in the previous five years. In other words, despite Covid-19, there were fewer deaths from respiratory diseases in the week ending March 20 than in an average year. (From The Spectator).
It would be interesting to see the corresponding figures for Denmark.
We are being led by the nose by stupid politicians and their highly paid assistants – who have never had a real job – and paraded around like patient circus horses. Resist while you still can! Otherwise, you will wake up one day in the Gulag, and it may well be before you know it. As we all know, when discussion ends, dictatorship begins. The discussion ended long ago!
Povl H. Riis-Knudsen
Translated with the help of AI
Danmarks Frihedsraad 